If this is your first visit, be sure to
check out the FAQ by clicking the
link above. You may have to register
before you can post: click the register link above to proceed. To start viewing messages,
select the forum that you want to visit from the selection below.

Announcement

Collapse

No announcement yet.

support for first generation UVD blocks (RV6xx, RS780, RS880 and RV790)

support for first generation UVD blocks (RV6xx, RS780, RS880 and RV790)

I run Linux on an Asus M4A89GTD PRO/USB3 motherboard (i.e. with AMD 890GX/RS880D chipset, with UVD 2), and I really would like support for first generation UVD blocks to be validated, and go open source.
This would allow people with no-brand-new AMD chipset like me to take advantage of their hardware.
But, as Christian's message says, this could happen soon or never.
Maybe it could help if people show their interest for this support, maybe not.
Maybe this "possible" new open source UVD support could also be advertised on Phoronix news ;-)

See it as it is: They already have your money, so you are low priority. For them it is more important to work on drivers for newer hardware, so that they can get more money, instead of not pissing of customers they already have (which in turn possibly would buy more AMD hardware if they would be satisfied with AMD). AMD's marketing is something no sane person can understand.

Comment

There are a number of threads on this already, but each one starts out pretty much the same. Folks are misinterpreting Christian's comment as "yeah, the code is ready but we might never review it for release", but in fact he is talking about two separate issues :

1. Yes, code is ready for review but not all the code that gets written is ever able to be released.

2. Reviews are significant efforts, not just checking for rude comments in the source code, and it's not unusual for them to fail. If that happens, the developers take what they learned from the review feedback and try to come up with a different (and hopefully acceptable) solution and another review is organized.

An acceptable implementation *was* eventually developed for the later UVD hardware and we were able to release the code after a couple of years of work. We don't know yet if we'll be able to do something similar for earlier UVD hardware.

Comment

There are a number of threads on this already, but each one starts out pretty much the same. Folks are misinterpreting Christian's comment as "yeah, the code is ready but we might never review it for release", but in fact he is talking about two separate issues :

1. Yes, code is ready for review but not all the code that gets written is ever able to be released.

2. Reviews are significant efforts, not just checking for rude comments in the source code, and it's not unusual for them to fail. If that happens, the developers take what they learned from the review feedback and try to come up with a different (and hopefully acceptable) solution and another review is organized.

An acceptable implementation *was* eventually developed for the later UVD hardware and we were able to release the code after a couple of years of work. We don't know yet if we'll be able to do something similar for earlier UVD hardware.

EDIT -- now the misinterpretation has its own article. Sigh...

Indeed you have explained that before. But what is not open to misinterpretation is this quote from Christian König:

It just doesn't has a high priority for the reviewer because we don't really sell that old hardware any more.

Which is clearly wrong. Newegg alone lists 18 different mainboards with RS780/880 chipsets that are still sold.

Comment

It should be noted that AMD never said we would support UVD in open source. We said repeatedly that we would look into it, but if it was deemed too risky we may not be able to do it. It should also be noted that we never said UVD would be supported on Linux at all (closed or open source) when these families of hw were launched. UVD 1.x and 2.0 are much different at a hw level compared to UVD 2.2 and newer. As such the older hardware needed had to be evaluated separately for release in open source. Additionally, this family of UVD hardware is several generations old so the relevant architects that need to review it have to look up the relevant details for the older hardware in order to review it properly. For closed source, you can still use catalyst along with a supported distro. Having a drm breach due to open source UVD and losing our ability to sell into a lot of markets is not going to help anyone. It doesn't matter that many of the various drm technologies have already been hacked. AMD is still legally responsible for it's part of the drm stack regardless.

Comment

For closed source, you can still use catalyst along with a supported distro.

For sure, using an ancient kernel.
Interested in the latest F2FS improvements? You don't get it!
Improvements made to BTRFS? Nope, not for you!
Any improvements in the kernel at all since 3.4? AMd says: No, use this old version!

So we have the choice between using an ancient kernel or using new stuff that doesn't support our hardware fully? Great, really great.